The United States Supreme Court's current term is prominently characterized by cases involving the federal government, marking the second consecutive year that such cases have constituted a significant portion of the court's docket.
In the 2024-25 term, the court is set to hear 62 cases, with 31 of them involving the federal government, reflecting a trend where federal policy disputes are increasingly being decided by the judiciary, as the Washington Examiner reports.
This recent trend first emerged during the 2023-24 term, when the majority of cases included the federal government as a party for the first time. Traditionally, the U.S. government appeared mostly in a large minority of cases rather than the majority. The current development signals a notable shift of policy discussions from traditional political arenas such as Congress and regulatory agencies to the nation's highest court.
The increased prominence of federal government cases in the Supreme Court's docket is attributed to a broader shift in resolving federal policy disputes. Instead of policy issues being settled through legislative or regulatory means, they are increasingly brought before the Supreme Court. This shift is heavily influenced by ideological divisions among the justices, which have grown more pronounced.
The current Supreme Court comprises six Republican-appointed justices and three Democrat-appointed justices. This composition increases the likelihood of ideological splits in cases, particularly those involving heated topics that have become focal points in cultural and political discourse.
The Supreme Court has already made significant rulings on federal regulatory matters, showcasing its influential role in determining the reach of government authority. One notable example is the court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited federal regulatory power by overturning a longstanding doctrine that deferred to federal agencies interpreting ambiguous statutes, known as the Chevron doctrine.
Another example is the ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, wherein the court curtailed the Securities and Exchange Commission's power to impose penalties without the necessity of a federal court trial. These decisions underscore the court's active role in shaping the contours of federal regulation and authority.
The upcoming term continues this trend with several high-profile cases that could have significant implications. One such case is Skrmetti v. United States, which addresses the legality of Tennessee's ban on transgender medical treatment for minors. This case is poised to probe into sensitive cultural and legal debates about state authority, gender identity, and medical ethics.
Similarly, Garland v. VanDerStok focuses on the contentious issue of ghost guns, firearms that can be assembled from kits without serial numbers, raising questions about the limits of federal regulation in the realm of gun control. These cases reflect the broader trend of the court’s involvement in matters that have traditionally been seen as legislative or regulatory domains.
In addition to the cases directly involving federal parties, the docket includes Martin v. City of Boise, which will address individuals' rights to sue police over wrongful SWAT raids. This case, too, taps into wider societal concerns about law enforcement practices and individual rights.
According to legal expert Steve Vladeck, this phenomenon places the Supreme Court justices "on the front lines of the culture wars." It reflects how their decisions are often split along ideological lines, especially in cases dealing with divisive issues. Vladeck further articulates this shift in the judiciary’s role through his analysis on his Substack blog, One First. "For better or worse," Vladeck comments, the growing presence of the federal government in the court's docket puts the justices "in contexts in which they are more likely to divide along ideological lines."
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's 2024-25 term continues the precedent set by the previous year of featuring a significant number of cases involving the federal government. This development underscores an evolving judicial landscape where high-stakes federal policy disputes are progressively adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
The ideological composition of the court plays a critical role in shaping outcomes that not only affect American governance but also resonate deeply within the fabric of cultural and social debates. As the nation’s highest court tackles these pivotal cases, the implications of their decisions will likely reach beyond legal arenas into broader societal realms, setting important precedents for years to come.
